Arctic Ice Minimum

Originally posted by sasquatch672
This is one data point in human history. Not saying it's not real, but as an engineer who thinks that it's not entirely impossible that man had something to do with climate change, I'm still trying to get over those emails admitting that the data was doctored.

You'll be happy to know then that these e-mails in fact did not contain any admission of that kind, nor any indications that data was doctored. Everything that appeared damning did so either because vital context was left out, or simply because in informal communication, researchers assume that the recipient knows certain stuff and allows himself to use ambiguous or suspect wording. (the infamous "trick to hide the decline" quote).

Originally posted by sh76
Diluted in your opinion. Stating that evolution occurs but that there exists a theory that the rules of evolution were initially set in motion by a deity of some sort or even that human beings were created whole may not be a good idea according to you, but is hardly the same as denying evolution.

Revisions to the US textbooks (much driven by Texas) are implying incorrectly that there is more than one general explanation for the origin of life accepted by the scientific community. That is called diluting evolution which is the only general explanation of the origin of life accepted by the scientific community including the vast majority of biologists and scientists generally.

You state two radically different ideas. The first notion that a deity set evolution in motion (or even that the deity created man through evolution) does not necessarily dilute evolution, and really has nothing to do with the accepted fact of evolution. The second notion that human beings were created whole by a deity is a complete refutation of evolution, and not accepted by the scientific community including the vast majority of biologists or scientists generally, and does not belong in science textbooks (yes in my opinion) in the public schools.

Lastly, intelligent design is also not accepted by the scientific community and is like putting lipstick on the pig of creationism. There is only one accepted general explanation of the origin of life by the scientific community. The others belong in religious or social studies, or in Sunday School, not in a science textbook in the public schools. Further, implying that there are viable science explanations of the origin of life other than evolution also does not belong in the science textbook in the public schools. Instead, the science textbooks should be clear to the truth that evolution is the only viable scientific explanation in the scientific community on the origin of man. Sure, if another plausible explanation arose with the scientific community, and it was accepted as plausible, then by all means include in the science textbook.

Originally posted by moon1969
Revisions to the US textbooks (much driven by Texas) are implying incorrectly that there is more than one general explanation for the origin of life accepted by the scientific community. That is called diluting evolution which is the only general explanation of the origin of life accepted by the scientific community including the vast majority of biologist ...[text shortened]... community, and it was accepted as plausible, then by all means include in the science textbook.

Head fake.

Presenting ideas not endorsed by the scientific community is not the same thing as diluting evolution.

Evolution is a biological principal that species evolve through natural selection and survival of the fittest. Evolution is not a history lesson. Presenting the possibility that a deity created the universe and wrote the laws of physics and biology does nothing to impugn the theory of evolution. The two concepts are entirely consistent with each other.